If you have forgotten your password or want to change your username please DO NOT create a second account, please use the password reset facility instead.
Or if the old account and/or email is inoperative; or you want to change your username; please use the Contact Us page. Duplicate accounts are not allowed. Thanks!

Canon 50/2.5 or 100/2.8 for micro shots

am wanting a sharper lens for micro shots of plants/fungi/water drops..from a close distance.... i usually use a 35-70, and am thinking of the 50/2.5. i chose this because i can use it for astro night shots as well, & it is said to be sharp (i would sell my 50/1.8 - & prob use some ext tubes on 70-210 if i need a longer reach)

i also have a 50/1.8 & am wondering if i should keep it & get a 100mm macro - which is better for macro but not so useful for night shots / twilight shots as the 50/2.5 would be

The 50mm 2.5 requires an expensive adaptor to allow it to reproduce images at 1:1, while most other macro lenses don't.

The 100macro lenses are all good lenses and very sharp, almost regardless of the brand, but have you considered the Canon 60mm F2.8 macro lens?
A real beauty, very sharp, nice colours, good auto focus and reasonable price - especially if you buy it for the right place.
It's nice and small too and takes great pictures both close up and distant.
Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc all have lenses around the 50-70mm mark as well as around the 90-100mm and none of them are duds.

All my photos are taken with recycled pixels.
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom, is knowing not to serve it in a fruit salad.

I bought the Canon 100 f2.8 Macro for around $800 locally in June.
When I got back from holidays I discovered that one of the other retailers in Brisbane actually emailed me a lower price ($760).
It has quick and accurate focus, is laser sharp and provides excellent colour rendition.
At 1:1 the front element of the lens is about 30cm from the subject.
The 50 is going to put you even closer to your subject, about 22cm and only gives you half life size.
If you are happy to buy grey, I think you can get the 100 for around $600.

The 50mm "macro" is not in fact a macro lens at all. It only becomes one when you add the "lifesize converter" which is a dedicated teleconverter which only works on that particular lens and costs nearly as much as the lens itsef. You wind up spending around $700 for a weird, ancient, and rather limited little lens.

The Canon EF-S 60mm macro, in contrast, is a modern design which is perfect in every way apart from not having IS. A briliant little lens which can easily be resold to willing buyers if you go full-frame one day, and should l be much easier to move on than the weirdo 50mm macro. If you own a 60mm macro, you are unlikely to ever use your 50/1.8 again, the EF-S macro beats it in just about every way - even speed is a wash as you need to stop the 50/1.8 down a bit to achive decent sharpness and by the time you do that you are around f/2.8 anyway, and the EF-S macro is sharp as you like wide open.

Both of the 100mm macros are excellent, but the outstanding new L Series one with IS is the one to have, if you are going to this focal length.